John and Ken of KFI-640 broadcast their radio show at the Whittwood Town Center in Whittier on Thursday, March 8, 2018 with Michelle Hanisee, union president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, in a drive to collect signatures for the Keep California Safe initiative. The initiative would change the state prison-reform laws blamed for the death of Whittier Police Officer Keith Boyer. (Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz, Pasadena Star-News/SCNG)

Editor’s note: Breaking views are thoughts from individual members of the editorial board on today’s headlines.

Four years ago, California voters approved Proposition 47 to reduce a handful of low-level theft and drug possession crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and invest the savings from reduced incarceration into crime prevention and reentry programs. The latter part has started to happen.

Fundamentally, Prop 47 was a long needed step in the right direction. Punishing petty thieves and drug possessors with felony convictions and the lifelong restrictions that accompany a felony record is a nonsensical, draconian approach that does little to keep the public safe while doing outsized harm to those punished with a felony conviction.

But since Proposition 47 was passed, opponents have attacked it as responsible for higher crime in the state. As I haveexplainedfartoomanytimes, there is still no evidence beyond the anecdotes and campaign talking points of opponents of a link between Prop 47 and higher crime. And for as scary as crime increases in recent years might sound, we shouldn’t lose perspective on what it actually looks like.

California crime rates since 1985. Rape is excluded because the FBI revised the definition of rape for crime reporting purposes in 2013, so figures before and after the change aren’t comparable. Courtesy of Californians for Safety and Justice.

Last week, researchers from the University of California, Irvine, released the findings of the first scholarly research analyzing the connection between Proposition 47 and crime in the year following its passage.

The peer reviewed study, which is set to be published in the August issue of the journal Criminology & Public Policy, found the initiative had no effect on violent crimes. While the research initially indicated that small increases in larceny and vehicle thefts appeared in response to Prop 47, furthertesting of that link failed to establish a causal relationship. It ultimately concluded the initiative didn’t drive up property crimes either.

In response, Michele Hanisee, president of the union for deputy district attorneys in Los Angeles, chose to misrepresent what the study found.

Focusing on the portion of the study which noted an uptick in larceny offenses potentially attributable to Prop 47, Hanisee rushed to conclude: “So – Prop 47 had ‘an impact that is large’ on larceny offenses!”

I encourage everyone to read the both Hanisee’s take and the response of UCI researchers Charis Kubrin and Bradley Bartos to Hanisee. It should be apparent to any objective observer just how off the mark Hanisee is.

Had Hanisee continued reading the study a minute or two longer, she would’ve gone through the extensive analysis which ultimately led the researchers to conclude: “[W]e find no evidence of a statistically significant robust increase for any of the seven UCR index 1 offense categories in the year following Prop 47’s enactment.” Those seven crimes are: homicide, robbery, rape, aggravated assault, larceny, vehicle theft and burglary.

(It should be pointed out that the property crime rate dropped nearly 3 percent the following year, to the second lowest rate on record. Incidentally, 2014, the year Prop 47 was passed, was the year with the lowest property crime rate in recorded state history. Conveniently for Prop 47 opponents, that means every subsequent year’s crime data is judged against the lowest levels ever recorded. But don’t expect them to acknowledge that.)

While Hanisee tried to be clever and suggested the study authors “read their own study again,” Hanisee might want to take her own advice and actually read through research she argues against, because this isn’t the first time Hanisee has so blatantly misrepresented research contradicting the worldview she’s peddling.

Last year, Hanisee pretended she “debunked” research by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice highlighting the simple, uncontroversial fact that crime trends vary significantly across the state.

The research pointed out that if you look at crime trends from 2010 to 2016 throughout California, 259 of 422 jurisdictions in California not including LA County saw decreases in crime over that period.

The research then analyzed crime data in 89 Los Angeles County jurisdictions from 2010 to 2016, showing that 53 percent of LA County’s jurisdictions saw increases in Part I crimes, while the rest saw decreases.

Both of these observations make clear that contrary to what critics say, criminal justice reforms like Prop 47 and AB109 have not had a uniform impact on crime in the state. Crime is still heavily influenced by local factors – from demographics to police practices.

Hanisee spun what CJCJ wrote as saying “that the crime rate statewide in California decreased following these reforms–if you excluded Los Angeles County. Yes, Los Angeles County, where more than one out of four residents of California reside!”

That’s not what the report said. To pretend it did is just dishonest.

Alas, opponents of criminal justice reforms seem to have nothing to stand on these days but anecdotes, campaign talking points and logical fallacies. That routine might work on politicians eager to look tough on crime and radio show hosts who jump at any opportunity to bash California, but the rest of us don’t have to buy it.

California has made tremendous progress moving away from mass incarceration without compromising public safety. Facts and honest discussion, not fear mongering, should dictate how we move forward. The facts are what they are: we don’t need to throw every low-level offender in prison at high cost to taxpayers to be safe.

Sal Rodriguez is an editorial writer and columnist for the Southern California News Group. He may be reached at salrodriguez@scng.com

Sal Rodriguez is the Opinion Editor for the Southern California News Group. He got his start in journalism investigating the abuse of solitary confinement in American prisons and jails with Solitary Watch, and has been published by a variety of publications including The Guardian and Mother Jones. He is a graduate of Reed College in Portland, Oregon.